Silent Hill in First Person

[Mephisto]

It's funny when I see someone saying that FP Horror games are "flooding the market" or anything similar. Flooding the computers would be a better choice of words because I don't really remember the last time we had a survival-horror game, on a console, that was 100% FP.

We had plenty of FPS' with horror themes here and there but nothing "true" horror...

[Typographenia]

The method of viewing does not ultimately matter.
As long as the pov compliments the design and mechanics of the game, they can do some wonderful storytelling, scares, and scenarios.

[Catch23]

I don't really remember the last time we had a survival-horror game, on a console, that was 100% FP.

You don't remember Outlast...?

Also, pretty funny how people just ignore the PC as though it doesn't count. It's still a gaming platform. If horror games are flooding the PC market, they are, by extension, flooding the gaming market. Because PCs are a thing people game on. Steam reached 65 million *active* users in 2013. That's a bigger install base than any of the current consoles.

How would people feel about this - it's always set to 3rd person when you're out in the streets, then always switches to 1st person when you go inside buildings?

I'd be cool with this. Would allow for more cramped spaces.

[Skele]

I don't really remember the last time we had a survival-horror game, on a console, that was 100% FP.

You don't remember Outlast...?

Also, pretty funny how people just ignore the PC as though it doesn't count. It's still a gaming platform. If horror games are flooding the PC market, they are, by extension, flooding the gaming market. Because PCs are a thing people game on. Steam reached 65 million *active* users in 2013. That's a bigger install base than any of the current consoles.

How would people feel about this - it's always set to 3rd person when you're out in the streets, then always switches to 1st person when you go inside buildings?

I'd be cool with this. Would allow for more cramped spaces.

Well, that's Outlast... What other first person survival horror can you name that came out in the last 5 years for consoles? Plus, that's like the only first person horror available for PS4 right now. When was the last time there was a first person survival horror released on PS3/360? You'd have to go back to like Condemned 2 or something, which was back in 2008.

Also, using active steam member numbers is misleading. Yeah, there's a ton of people in the world that have "gaming" PCs, but you have no way of knowing how many console gamers make up that 65 million. So sure, PC gamers have access to these first person games, but I'm guessing the majority of console gamers don't.

[alone in the town]

I can't really repeat this enough: in terms of gameplay, perspective and engine, Silent Hill was a blatant and shameless ripoff of Resident Evil. Sure, there were differences between the two, but every one of those differences was superficial. And I can't remember a single person complaining about that. So, why is it such a big deal if Silent Hill rips off the gameplay style of a horror game like Amnesia, especially when the tone, story focus and horror style of Amnesia is certainly much closer to what Silent Hill has always aspired than was the zombie apocalypse format of Resident Evil?

I mean, seriously, I identified very well with James Sunderland. I understood his motives and I sympathized with his pain. It was because the game was written well by people who had obvious talent for writing a nuanced character. The fact that Silent Hill 2 was in the third person perspective had zero impact, one way or another, on what made the game immersive to me. I would be completely okay with ditching it.

I also find it kind of funny that there are people who hate the very idea of first person perspective being in a Silent Hill game, yet simultaneously hope that the game will offer a huge environment to explore. First person perspective makes that exploration far more interesting, since you have a vastly greater amount of control to actually see things. I don't see much point in looking around if I can't see things exactly as I want to.

I loved the fact that the first game gave you the option to view the entire game from a sort-of first person perspective, and when I play the game, I basically have that shoulder button pressed from start to finish. The game is far scarier when you can only see what's in front of you, when you see mumblers seemingly materializing out of the darkness, not coming at some dude on the screen but coming right at you, . Playing the game normally never gives you those subtle little elements. Plus, you can see all sorts of awesome little details that are basically invisible to you in the third person. I also like the added precision you get controlling Harry. It was a shame that future games in the series never implemented this awesome feature.

[19pack]

I loved the fact that the first game gave you the option to view the entire game from a sort-of first person perspective, and when I play the game, I basically have that shoulder button pressed from start to finish. The game is far scarier when you can only see what's in front of you, when you see mumblers seemingly materializing out of the darkness, not coming at some dude on the screen but coming right at you, . Playing the game normally never gives you those subtle little elements. Plus, you can see all sorts of awesome little details that are basically invisible to you in the third person. I also like the added precision you get controlling Harry. It was a shame that future games in the series never implemented this awesome feature.

This! I loved the 'Harry-Cam' dearly, and was always bitter that for some reason Team Silent decided it wasn't worth carrying over into the sequels. I too also loved how it could allow you to get a better view of the details of the game world. I always thought it would make a good camera angle for aiming weapons without a targeting reticule, purely for aesthetic and fear-creating reasons. Perhaps if combined with the R3-zoom function in SH3 too!

[fudgestix]

I also find it kind of funny that there are people who hate the very idea of first person perspective being in a Silent Hill game, yet simultaneously hope that the game will offer a huge environment to explore. First person perspective makes that exploration far more interesting, since you have a vastly greater amount of control to actually see things. I don't see much point in looking around if I can't see things exactly as I want to.

I actually find first person a lot more restrictive when it comes to exploration. You might be able to see smaller details clearer, but I like to be able to see my whole environment and character placement within it. Having a "Harry Cam"/First person view function isn't a bad idea, but playing a whole game in first person feels like someone slipped horse blinkers on me.

[Typographenia]

Having a "Harry Cam"/First person view function isn't a bad idea, but playing a whole game in first person feels like someone slipped horse blinkers on me.

Hopefully, they design the game to not make you feel like the way you are viewing the content is handicapped, unless that is a desired, deliberate choice. I don't know about what settings they will offer, but first person pc tends to offer at least some amount of customization as far as field of vision and such goes. I know that might not ultimately address your concerns, but I would like to stay optimistic that they will at least try to cater to people who want to play it differently (to an extent). That is, assuming that this actually ends up being a first person experience.

[KingCrimson]

I vote for third-person. It gives the designers more control over the presentation. In first-person, there's no way to frame a shot for maximum impact, or to draw attention to certain features of the environment. I liked the Harry-cam from the first game, but it was just for fun. There were so many awesome moments that would have been lost if the whole game was played that way. Not being able to see every detail up close helps preserve the feeling of unease and discomfort, I think.

[Skele]

I vote for third-person. It gives the designers more control over the presentation. In first-person, there's no way to frame a shot for maximum impact, or to draw attention to certain features of the environment.

What???

I know everyone has their preferences, but these points of your argument are a bit off. I hope you know that everything you just said is wrong? There's plenty of first person games which do the exact things you claim can't be done in this POV.

[Typographenia]

Skele is absolutely correct. If the designers are failing at utilizing simple techniques through color, contrast, etc. to draw the player's attention or to guide their attention, they aren't doing a very good job. As far as "framing a shot" goes, that can easily be done in a number of ways from a removal of control ala Half-Life, cutscene, loading screen/door that frames you upon entering, an interactive sequence, and many more.

[KingCrimson]

I vote for third-person. It gives the designers more control over the presentation. In first-person, there's no way to frame a shot for maximum impact, or to draw attention to certain features of the environment.

What???

I know everyone has their preferences, but these points of your argument are a bit off. I hope you know that everything you just said is wrong? There's plenty of first person games which do the exact things you claim can't be done in this POV.

Some do, but they rely on the player taking a certain path and not looking away from something they want to showcase. I'll give a few examples of third-person or fixed-camera shots that were highly effective and would have been less so in first-person (in my humble opinion):

1. Climbing the spiral staircase to the lighthouse in SH1. That shot is effing beautiful, and in first-person it would have just been... walking up some stairs.
2. The high camera angle that shows Mandarins under the metal grating in the hotel in SH2. Those enemies are so easy to avoid, in first-person you could have missed them entirely.
3. Ascending the ladder in the alternate hospital in SH3. Most first-person games handle ladders by allowing the player to look directly up or down, which would have ruined the spectacle of Valtiel, the nurse, etc.
4. Finding the flashlight on the mannequin wearing Mary's dress in SH2. The shot obscures the monsters that are waiting in the darkness, which could have been visible in first-person.
5. The Pyramid Head chase sequence, where the camera shows what is happening behind James, something that would be out of view from a first-person perspective.

That's just a few off the top of my head. First-person games can approximate this kind of directing, but they are locked into using whatever angle corresponds to where the player's virtual "head" is currently located. No ominous up-shots, no wide-angles to give a large area an imposing presence, no cinematography that relies on an unmoving perspective. In P.T. for instance, lots of players didn't even notice the ghost on the upper floor. In third-person, the camera could have easily switched to reveal her when you walked through that area of the hallway.

I'm not saying first-person games can never be well-directed, just that they have to work harder at it. Typographenia mentioned Half-Life 2, which I think is very well-directed, but it's a science fiction shooter. As mentioned, a lot of times the best shots could only be achieved by literally preventing the player from moving around. It's a trade-off that doesn't need to be made, to me.

[Skele]

1. Climbing the spiral staircase to the lighthouse in SH1. That shot is effing beautiful, and in first-person it would have just been... walking up some stairs.
2. The high camera angle that shows Mandarins under the metal grating in the hotel in SH2. Those enemies are so easy to avoid, in first-person you could have missed them entirely.
3. Ascending the ladder in the alternate hospital in SH3. Most first-person games handle ladders by allowing the player to look directly up or down, which would have ruined the spectacle of Valtiel, the nurse, etc.
4. Finding the flashlight on the mannequin wearing Mary's dress in SH2. The shot obscures the monsters that are waiting in the darkness, which could have been visible in first-person.
5. The Pyramid Head chase sequence, where the camera shows what is happening behind James, something that would be out of view from a first-person perspective.

That's just a few off the top of my head. First-person games can approximate this kind of directing, but they are locked into using whatever angle corresponds to where the player's virtual "head" is currently located. No ominous up-shots, no wide-angles to give a large area an imposing presence, no cinematography that relies on an unmoving perspective. In P.T. for instance, lots of players didn't even notice the ghost on the upper floor. In third-person, the camera could have easily switched to reveal her when you walked through that area of the hallway.

Honestly, first person view can be used for just about all of those examples, and it's debatable whether or not that POV would actually enhance the experience. The only one that's even challenging to do, is the PH chase sequence. You can't do it at that angle, but you could probably come up with a very interesting way for viewing what's behind the character.

Also, they can make the camera twitch to reveal what they want you to see in first person as well. This is done often in games. However, sometimes developers just want you to discover things on your own, and not hold your hand as much. I think it kind of helps with replay value, as you could totally miss something on a first play through, only to find something fascinating on your next.

[KingCrimson]

1. Climbing the spiral staircase to the lighthouse in SH1. That shot is effing beautiful, and in first-person it would have just been... walking up some stairs.
2. The high camera angle that shows Mandarins under the metal grating in the hotel in SH2. Those enemies are so easy to avoid, in first-person you could have missed them entirely.
3. Ascending the ladder in the alternate hospital in SH3. Most first-person games handle ladders by allowing the player to look directly up or down, which would have ruined the spectacle of Valtiel, the nurse, etc.
4. Finding the flashlight on the mannequin wearing Mary's dress in SH2. The shot obscures the monsters that are waiting in the darkness, which could have been visible in first-person.
5. The Pyramid Head chase sequence, where the camera shows what is happening behind James, something that would be out of view from a first-person perspective.

That's just a few off the top of my head. First-person games can approximate this kind of directing, but they are locked into using whatever angle corresponds to where the player's virtual "head" is currently located. No ominous up-shots, no wide-angles to give a large area an imposing presence, no cinematography that relies on an unmoving perspective. In P.T. for instance, lots of players didn't even notice the ghost on the upper floor. In third-person, the camera could have easily switched to reveal her when you walked through that area of the hallway.

Honestly, first person view can be used for just about all of those examples, and it's debatable whether or not that POV would actually enhance the experience. The only one that's even challenging to do, is the PH chase sequence. You can't do it at that angle, but you could probably come up with a very interesting way for viewing what's behind the character.

I suppose some of my examples could be done in first-person, but it wouldn't be as natural and seamless as third-person. My point was that a third-person camera can be literally anywhere, and it can either move or stay still when the character moves. In first-person, the camera can only ever be in one place, and it moves with the character. Effective direction and framing can be accomplished either way, it's just not as flexible to have the camera locked to the character's perspective as compared to anywhere the designers want, in my opinion.

Also, they can make the camera twitch to reveal what they want you to see in first person as well. This is done often in games. However, sometimes developers just want you to discover things on your own, and not hold your hand as much. I think it kind of helps with replay value, as you could totally miss something on a first play through, only to find something fascinating on your next.

True.

[Typographenia]

That's just a few off the top of my head. First-person games can approximate this kind of directing, but they are locked into using whatever angle corresponds to where the player's virtual "head" is currently located. No ominous up-shots, no wide-angles to give a large area an imposing presence, no cinematography that relies on an unmoving perspective. In P.T. for instance, lots of players didn't even notice the ghost on the upper floor. In third-person, the camera could have easily switched to reveal her when you walked through that area of the hallway.

I'm not saying first-person games can never be well-directed, just that they have to work harder at it. Typographenia mentioned Half-Life 2, which I think is very well-directed, but it's a science fiction shooter. As mentioned, a lot of times the best shots could only be achieved by literally preventing the player from moving around. It's a trade-off that doesn't need to be made, to me.

I suppose some of my examples could be done in first-person, but it wouldn't be as natural and seamless as third-person. My point was that a third-person camera can be literally anywhere, and it can either move or stay still when the character moves. In first-person, the camera can only ever be in one place, and it moves with the character. Effective direction and framing can be accomplished either way, it's just not as flexible to have the camera locked to the character's perspective as compared to anywhere the designers want, in my opinion.

It all depends on what kind of message they want to deliver. The examples you described are certainly iconic to people that have played the games, but there are just as many examples that could pulled from first person titles. As long as the content and presentation are in sync, you will still have those rewarding and memorable moments, third person or not.
If this game actually ends up being in a first person perspective, then you have to assume that they have thought about how it will exist in the game and how the player will encounter, handle, and interpret it all. It's not about making tradeoffs or being more artistic, it's about what better serves the content in the final product.

[krath]

I'd be ok with a combination of 1st and 3rd person so long as everything is used effectively. I loved the use of the different camera angles in the first three games. The most memorable of which would be the alleyway at the start of SH1. Having said that, I also liked being able to explore Henry's appointment more thoroughly in SH4, which wouldn't have been possible without a 1st person perspective. All in all, as I already said, if used effectively I think a combination would be great.

I agree with all of this.

I would personally be surprised if they didn't do any first person given the way PT was set up (I know, I know, the disclaimer saying the trailer had no relation to the game... But to have the trailer not even relate in the way things are experienced?). Then again, why hire Norman Reedus if you aren't going to do third person the majority of the time? My guess is it will be 90-95% third person with first person bits thrown in when it would be most effective.

[phantomess]

I'm not very fond of the idea of it being first-person. I don't automatically dislike first-person games; I like a number of them. But I do generally like third-person view more and feel that it suits SH a bit better- and love having some whacky camera angles included.

That said, it wouldn't likely ruin my experience for the game to be first-person. It's just definitely not my preference.

I would dislike having a mixture more (switching between first and third person). No thanks. That's annoying.

[Skele]

I would dislike having a mixture more (switching between first and third person). No thanks. That's annoying.

I can certainly understand, and I agree with this if one of the particular views is far superior to the other. It'll just make you dread being switched over to whichever view wasn't done right, and make those sections of the game your least favorite. Hopefully if they plan on having a heavy mixture of both 1st and 3rd person views, they're both exceptionally well done.

[DistantJ]

The reason there are now so many first person horror games is because it works better, and it's scarier.

[Skele]

The reason there are now so many first person horror games is because it works better, and it's scarier.

I'll agree to the scarier part, as I still haven't finished Outlast due to being so creeped out by it. I JUST got past the part with the Doctor, and that took me a while because I was so afraid of progressing. I remember wasting a whole battery once while just hiding under a bed. SMH.